Each aspect of the show was eye catching, inviting, educational, inspiring and incredibly well executed throughout each episode. The set, camera work, host and pace was excellent on previous episodes, what happened here? The shift from the three experts from each country to the individual chef during the cook off was a great way to move things along. I noticed the women were knocked out early but appreciated the growth within the industry as represented by the experts and panel of chefs. I would expect expanded diversity in a second season though. Sometimes teams were working to please a particular chef's anticipated palate and other times they were taking risks and focused on creativity; both approaches were reinforced depending on the chef. Although this is to be expected, the American chef, centered in the middle of the final episode on the stage appeared pompous and set an initial tone of elitism at the close of the series. It reaffirmed any discomfort the viewer had throughout the episodes watching the American come out almost as if superior to his fellow chefs. Note, I am an American.

This unbecoming pushiness was carried over within the editing of the finale, when Chef Grant Achatz was observed debating the importance of a chef taking a risk versus serving familiar tasty food. The question and weight of risk was an important element to address, but this is where things went downhill quickly. Except for the winner, all of the other chefs created a NOVEL signature dish. The comment from Clare Smyth that dishes in her restaurant must be perfect before being served and often take years to create further exemplified the importance of the risk element. Each chef presented a dish with a risk component, as demonstrated by their combining ingredients and techniques on a single plate, except the announced winner. He had tasted and presented his dish years ago when he started his own restaurant. It was beyond disappointing since the theme throughout the show/competition was elevating the food in a way that balanced respect for the authentic dishes, the ingredients used, and the voice of the individual chef. I did not hear any specific comments about the elevating components of the winner's dish. The winner is clearly worthy and talented..yet... My issue is with the presentation of the decision itself. The rubric used to identify the winner appeared weak and the editing made the final decision appear to be steamrolled by Chef Grant Achatz. Known for overcoming his cancer, embracing the culture and interactions of ingredients in a progressive way, he was quickly shown (spliced in editing) driving the weight of risk when determining the winner. Showing the weight each chef/judge placed on components/elements of a dish such as the smell, presentation, texture, combination of tastes, the cultural significance and story of the dishes along with risk, may have served the audience with a continuation of the experience from the culmination of previous episodes rather than a seemingly hurried, poorly thought out decision highjacked by an American chef. Again this was hopefully the editing and is in no way a personal attack on the judges time and expertise within the program, because each of them were phenomenal.

It was this last part, that left me with a deflating experience; leaving an aftertaste similar to a musty flavorless void. The viewer went from soaring across cuisines in gleeful flight, to being trapped in lifeless cave once the lights were slowly turned on as the judges gathered and the winner was declared. Up until that point and the final decision, I would have recommended the program to everyone and anyone. Now, eh....if it is mentioned I will share that the viewer will have a progressive exciting ride, only to experience a pure deflation at the end, just like most of the edible competitions that are not based on aesthetics alone. There is no clear rationale for the chosen winner. And I am sure there was a clear rationale given the integrity of the judges, it was not shared with the viewers. Either clue us in on it next time or post a disclaimer (for entertainment purposes only). My goodness, you have world class chefs judging...let's honor their voices in the future.

That being said, Bravo to the winner for finding his voice and sharing it with all of us! Well done!

The game show genre features TV series with contestants competing against each other in various challenges, tasks, or quizzes to win prizes or rewards. Game shows are designed to engage viewers by presenting exciting and often competitive scenarios that involve participants using their knowledge, skills, and strategies to outperform their opponents and win.

Bill Barretta and Pat Sajak in Wheel of Fortune (1983)

The reality TV genre, short for "reality television," features real-life situations, events, and interactions, often involving ordinary people rather than actors performing scripted roles. Reality TV shows aim to capture unscripted and authentic moments, providing viewers with a glimpse into various aspects of human life, behavior, and experiences.

The finalists go solo to create distinctive signature dishes for a panel of all nine legendary chefs -- but only one will earn a spot at their table.

Get a closer look at some of Hollywood's perfect pairs.

Hollywood Power Couples

Get a closer look at some of Hollywood&#39;s perfect pairs.

"The Gentlemen" and "Slow Horses" return this fall, while the "Reacher" spin-off series "Neagley" makes its debut. See our guide of the biggest Fall TV and streaming releases.

2026 Fall TV and Streaming Watch Guide

&quot;The Gentlemen&quot; and &quot;Slow Horses&quot; return this fall, while the &quot;Reacher&quot; spin-off series &quot;Neagley&quot; makes its debut. See our guide of the biggest Fall TV and streaming releases.

Get a closer look at these actors from their many TV and streaming series roles.

The Finale

Episodes

Photos

Top Cast30

User reviews15

Related interests

Storyline

Top picks

Details

Tech specs

Contribute to this page

More to explore

Recently viewed